why are migrant workers’ jobs jobs that Canadians won’t do? What makes them that way? The labour? The hours? The pay? The treatment? Because there are bus loads of teens who get driven out to fields to detassle corn every summer… what makes that job acceptable but the other jobs not?
If it’s because the jobs are terrible, why is it allowed? Is it because the workers are migrants? Is it the industry and no one wants to look too closely?
If it’s unscrupulous farmers, what is being done to stop that? To protect workers? What is in place to protect workers? Are they put in a position that means they can’t speak up against an employer because they’ll be deported?
There was talk of some 2000 workers being illegal workers… shouldn’t there be things in place to prevent that? Passports tracked to farms or checked on investigations?
Are there incentives for migrant workers to keep coming back? Can they become citizens if they come back year after year after year? They’re obviously reliable individuals if they get hired for years so wouldn’t that be a bonus to the country? Hard workers?
Was “WE” the best choice? What was the criteria? It seems like the goal was to reach as many students as possible, which (at least on paper) WE charity was going to be able to do. So what is the second choice? I keep reading that they might have been chosen for their ties to the Trudeaus, but I haven’t read who else should have been chosen if the goal was reaching as many young people as possible. So what not-for-profit should have been chosen? Was that the right goal? Should they have been excluded because of their ties to the Trudeaus?
How is the grant program being administered now? Have the Opposition suggested anyone? What criteria should be considered? If it turns out they were the best option to reach the most young people the fastest, what then? What if the second choice fails? Should the criteria have been different?
Why did the provincial Liberals abstain in a vote? How is that even a thing? If it’s a conflict of interest thing, should every politician who shows up for a vote be required to vote? They’re supposed to be the voice of their constituents so how can they just decide to be silent?
Are they busy thinking about politics and optics? What will the consequences will be if they vote a certain way beyond what the bill is about? Is it unrealistic to demand that a MPP or MP represent their constituents and vote on bills, even if it’s not ideal for the party?
Could unions be part of the Employment Standards Act in the future? In the sense that every workplace would have a union? Would that help with workers’ rights? There are still incidents of a workplace getting a union and either the place suddenly closes or there’s a lockout. It’s all legal for the businesses, but what about the workers? If all workplaces (businesses with 25 or more employees or 50, etc) could be linked with unions, would that better protect workers?
There are places that want to get rid of union dues but somehow keep unions… what if taxes went to them instead? There are problems… but could a group like a union be created to argue for workers? Have the capacity and the capabilities of a union? A lot rests on the employees knowing all of their rights or calling the Labour board or Health and Safety board, but many young workers can be afraid of reprisal… a union-like group that’s accessible and obviously there for the employees would be useful in calming that fear, wouldn’t it?
International students, young workers, people considered to have more vulnerable positions where they need a job or fear of losing a job aren’t likely to speak up if there’s wrong doing because they *need* the job or are young and don’t want to be fired (which may sound the same but I mean teens don’t look forward to being fired). If there was a union-type group, perhaps they’d feel like they can speak up without losing a job… which could make jobs safer and hold businesses to better standards. It’s even been suggested these groups are generally hired for minimum wage jobs and businesses like them for this very reason: they won’t speak up.
Does allowing an employee become so reliant on a job invite certain abuses? Will they tolerate more disrespect because they feel trapped? How many employees would love to escape a bad job but feel stuck, knowing the relationship is toxic but feeling there’s no way to get out? Or worse, that they’ll trade one bad job for another?
Not every job should be wonderful, but how bad can a job be before it’s intolerable for society? Does the pay change that tolerance? Do we expect minimum wage workers to be insulted by guests/customers/clients? Is it acceptable because these jobs are still considered “starter jobs”?
Is there a reason these jobs are still promoting as being simple? That most don’t talk about how large menus can be? How many tasks are now required? That service is timed? Sometimes in seconds? How many logs and tracking is needed? Because they are far more complex than they were years ago. Employees have grown to handle the changes, but has that reality been adequately shown? Is it better if minimum wage jobs are depicted as fun and easy?